As plaintiff attorneys leverage the rise of safetyism to secure massive verdicts, corporate defendants must adapt their voir dire strategies. Safetyism fosters unrealistic expectations of risk elimination, making jurors more likely to punish corporations based on emotional reasoning rather than legal causation.
Recent cases, like Abel v. Lacks Beach Service and Cruz v. Allied Aviation, showcase how jurors’ shifting attitudes about corporate responsibility and safety contribute to soaring damages. The research findings from IMS Senior Jury Consulting Advisor Jill M. Leibold, PhD and Senior Jury Consultant Nick Polavin, PhD on safetyism reveal key juror traits that predict pro-plaintiff verdicts—including risk aversion, distrust of government agencies, and an inherent belief that corporations should “do more” no matter the feasibility.
To combat these biases, defense attorneys must refine voir dire strategies to identify and remove safetyist jurors. Key tactics include targeted questioning on safety expectations, government distrust, and corporate influence, as well as effective cause challenges to exclude high-risk jurors.
Understanding safetyism is critical for defense teams aiming to mitigate nuclear verdicts. Learn how to tailor voir dire and jury selection to counteract emotional decision-making in the courtroom.
Read more: https://imslegal.com/articles/defense-voir-dire-safetyism